Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review

Chuck Lever <> Thu, 24 August 2017 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59541132A81 for <>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id StAumFC9_PV1 for <>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB66132940 for <>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v7OEtC7F024937 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:55:13 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v7OEtCQP021200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:55:12 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v7OEtCDS025520; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:55:12 GMT
Received: from (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:55:11 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Chuck Lever <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:55:11 -0400
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: David Noveck <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Source-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Milestone draft for working group review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NFSv4 Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:55:17 -0000

> On Aug 22, 2017, at 8:15 AM, David Noveck <> wrote:
> > Our usual criterion for considering "wacky" ideas is a personal
> > I-D. 
> Personal I-D's also discuss non-wacky ideas,  The wackiness of
> any particular idea is a subjective judgment that different people will
> make differently and that will change over time, with working
> group discussion.
> > I'm OK with placing these ideas in a "requires I-D"
> > category.
> I don't anticipate that the list I produce will be organized accoring
> to categories of that sort.  In any case, I expect that it will contain:
> 	• Ideas for which there is an I-D and those for which there is no I-D (yet).
> 	• Ideas that I consider "wacky",but I'll try to filter out those that the entire working group is liable to find wacky.  In any case, subsequent workig group discussion could result in elimination of most of those. 
> > I'd like to see these items and any clarifications discussed
> > on-list 
> I'll make sure to copy the list on any discussion.
> > first
> Before what?, 
> > or (preferably) in I-D form. 
> That's certainly preferabe but my ability to get other people to write
> documents, or even read them, is quite limited.
> > Perhaps that's a
> > high bar,
> It certainly is.
> > but the WG deserves a clear problem statement and
> > explanation of a proposed solution, so that it's members can
> > evaluate new ideas fairly.
> The question is at what point they actually need that.  I think it
> is appropriate for the working group to insist on an I-D before embarking 
> on a working-group document and lately it has been doing that.
> With regard to expectations for inclusion on the potential milestone 
> list, I don't think it makes sense to make the bar that high.  Doing that
> would filter out too many "wacky" ideas before the working group has 
> had an opportunity to decide that they were not so wacky after all

My opinion is based on recent experience with trying to assess the
content of Tom's IETF 99 "Next Steps" slides. Appealing topics,
all! But as I discussed these with various other members of the
Working Group, it became clear that each of us saw something mildly
or even vastly different in each bullet point. An I-D provides a
locus for consensus about each idea.

The other important piece of information that an I-D immediately
documents is it identifies stakeholders and those who are willing
to pursue the publication of the content.

A simple list of criteria for entertaining an idea, wacky or
otherwise, might be:

- Consensus around a problem statement

- One or more clearly expressed proposed solutions

- Someone (or ones) identified as the driver

- One or more WG members identified as reviewers or area experts

With a full set of these, we have an idea of what is to be addressed
and how; whether it is appropriate work for the WG to consider and
help with; and whose specific elbow grease will be applied to get
it published.

At that point, the content amounts to a short I-D anyway.

Hence "Requires I-D" would be a category of potentially interesting
ideas that are temporarily lacking one or more of the above criteria,
though we expect all will eventually be provided in some form.
Essentially this is a list containing I-D placeholders.

You can change the name, if "Requires" has an overly demanding tone.
Would "I-D Requested" be more inviting?

Chuck Lever